從PISA2009建構反應題剖析臺灣學生的閱讀問題

The Analysis of Taiwan Students Reading Problem in PISA 2009 Constructed-Response Items

10.6384/CIQ.201110.0026

鄒慧英(Hue-Ying Tzou)；黃秀霜(Hsiu-Shuang Huang)；陳昌明(C. M. Chen)

國際學生能力評量計畫 ； 建構反應題 ； 閱讀素養 ； PISA ； Constructed-response item ； reading literacy

課程與教學

14卷4期（2011 / 10 / 01）

25 - 48

繁體中文

國際學生能力評量計畫PISA 2009調查報告出爐，臺灣2009的表現與2006相去不遠，為進一步深思與探究臺灣學生的閱讀評量表現，本文以文本分析法剖析臺灣學生於PISA 2009閱讀評量建構反應題可能隱含的閱讀問題。本研究以臺灣學生於PISA 2009閱讀評量標準版範例試題中的三道建構反應題之作答文本進行分析討論，結果發現臺灣低表現水準學生的問題有四：（1）使用注音符號、錯別字或語句不通順；（2）未作答的比例偏高；（3）無法掌握題目關鍵，所寫答案與題目要求不符；（4）忽略應依據文本作答。

As it is evident from the results of the Program for International Students Assessment (PISA) 2009, the average performances of Taiwan students were not much different between the PISA 2006 and PISA 2009 survey cycles. In order to have a deep understanding of Taiwan students' performance on the reading assessment, the current study uses textual analysis for the constructed response items to explore students' potential reading problems. Three constructed-response items released in the PISA 2009 results are used for the analyses and discussion. The study concludes that low performers in Taiwan have the following characteristics. They tend to use phonetic symbols rather than Chinese characters. Misuses of words and/or grammar are often seen in their responses. The nonresponse rate is relatively high, and if there are valid responses, they do not correspond to the questions appropriately, which implies that students are not able to handle what has been measured. Sometimes, students even ignore the prompts and give their answers which are either not related to the prompts provided or not tied to the questions being asked.

1. Carley, K.(1993).Coding choices for textual analysis: A comparison of content analysis and map analysis.Sociological Methodology,23,75-126.
2. Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy(2010).Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success.New York, NY:Carnegie Corporation of New York.
3. Graham, S.,Hebert, M. A.(2010).A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act ReportA Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report,Washington, DC:Alliance for Excellent Education.
4. Mendelovits, J.,Searle, D.(2009).PISA for teachers: Interpreting and using information from an international reading assessment in the classroom.ACER Research Conference 2009, Assessment and Student Learning:Collecting, interpreting and using data to inform teaching,Perth, Australia:
5. OECD(2010).PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do- Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science.
6. OECD(2010).PISA 2009 Results: Student engagement, strategies and practices.
7. Pajares, F.(2003).Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature.Reading & Writing Quarterly,19,139-158.
8. Pajares, F.,Valiante, G.(1999).Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-beliefs of middle school students.Contemporary Educational psychology,24,390-405.
9. Perin, D.,Hare, R.(2010).A contextualized reading-writing intervention for community college students.Community College Research Center (CCRC) Brief,44,1-4.
10. Wu, M. L.,Les, M.(2008).The difference between boys and girls.Melbourne:Curriculum Corporation.
11. 天下(2007)。從閱讀到寫作中小學現況大調查。天下，2007 親子天下專刊，138-151。
12. 柯華葳(2007)。臺灣需要更多「閱讀策略」教學。天下，2007 親子天下專刊，152-158。

1. 蔡邑庭、林珮伃(2014)。小一學童的基礎閱讀表現與幼兒園閱讀素養環境的關聯。教育研究與發展期刊，10(2)，1-30。
2. 陳佳欣,林素微(2023)。臺灣學生後設認知與閱讀素養的關聯：PISA 2009與PISA 2018資料的比較。測驗學刊，70(3)，193-220。
3. 林珮伃、林宛儒(2015)。臺灣孩童學前的識字差異與聲韻覺識、視知覺、注音符號能力的區辨效能。課程與教學，18(2)，101-124。
4. 潘世尊(2014)。教育行動研究的困境與挑戰。教育理論與實踐學刊，30，119-147。
5. 余亮誾(2012)。科技大學推動中文能力提升的探討─以雲林科技大學閱讀推廣活動為例。通識教育學刊，10，41-61。
6. (2014)。合作學習與閱讀理解應用於國小二年級國語文領域閱讀教學之行動研究。靜宜人文社會學報，8(2)，283-316。
7. (2018)。日本語学習者のPISA型読解の課題から読解指導の改善策を考える―ある大学の日本語学科2年生を例に―。應用外語學報，28，81-101。
8. (2019)。應用言說分析於意義為本閱讀教學之研究：以國小二年級為例。市北教育學刊，64，1-37。